[Senate Hearing 109-275]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-275
PROPOSED WESTERN HEMISPHERE PASSPORT RULES: IMPACT ON TRADE AND TOURISM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
LAREDO, TEXAS
__________
DECEMBER 2, 2005
__________
Serial No. J-109-55
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
25-936 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
Reed O'Connor, Majority Chief Counsel
Jim Flug, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........ 1
prepared statement........................................... 31
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts, prepared statement.............................. 41
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 53
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New
York, prepared statement....................................... 66
WITNESSES
Dezenski, Elaine, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office
of Policy, Planning and International Affairs, Department of
Homeland Security, Washington, D.C............................. 7
Flores, Hon. Elizabeth G., Mayor, City of Laredo, Texas.......... 3
Moss, Frank E., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services,
Bureau of Consular Affairs, Washington, D.C.................... 10
Nixon, Dennis E., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
International Bank of Commerce, Laredo, Texas.................. 21
Sepulveda, Pete, Jr., Chairman, Border Trade Alliance, Phoenix,
Arizona........................................................ 17
Trevino, Guillermo, Chairman, Board of Directors of the Laredo
Chamber of Commerce, Laredo, Texas............................. 19
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Dezenski, Elaine, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office
of Policy, Planning and International Affairs, Department of
Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., prepared statement........ 33
Kephart, Janice L., former Counsel, National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks, Laredo, Texas, prepared statement........... 43
Moss, Frank E., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services,
Bureau of Consular Affairs, Washington, D.C., prepared
statement...................................................... 56
Nixon, Dennis E., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
International Bank of Commerce, Laredo, Texas, prepared
statement...................................................... 62
Sepulveda, Pete, Jr., Chairman, Border Trade Alliance, Phoenix,
Arizona, prepared statement.................................... 70
Trevino, Guillermo, Chairman, Board of Directors of the Laredo
Chamber of Commerce, Laredo, Texas, prepared statement......... 74
Webster, Rick, Vice President, Government Affairs, Travel
Industry Association of America, Washington, D.C., letter and
attachment..................................................... 79
PROPOSED WESTERN HEMISPHERE PASSPORT RULES: IMPACT ON TRADE AND TOURISM
----------
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2005
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and
Citizenship, of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:36 p.m. in
Room 111, Texas A&M International University, Western
Hemisphere Trade Center, Laredo, Texas, Hon. John Cornyn,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Cornyn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Chairman Cornyn. Good afternoon and welcome. The purpose of
today's hearing is to review the Western Hemisphere Travel
Document Initiative and how it will affect trade and tourism.
Currently, U.S. citizens and some citizens of other countries
in the Western Hemisphere are not required to present a
passport to enter the United States when traveling from certain
Western Hemisphere countries.
The 9/11 Commission, recognizing the obvious vulnerability
of this policy, recommended in its final report that Americans
should not be exempt from carrying biometric passports when
they enter the United States, nor, they said, should Canadians
or Mexicans.
In response, the U.S. Congress passed the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. That law mandates
that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with
the Secretary of State, develop and implement a plan to require
U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to present a passport or
other secure document when entering the United States. The law
requires that the plan be in place by January 1, 2008.
The Departments of State and Homeland Security recently
published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the first
formal statement by the administration on how it plans to
implement the new passport requirements. That notice indicates
that the agencies will implement the Western Hemisphere
initiative in two stages.
First, the agencies will apply the passport requirement to
all air and sea travelers by December 31, 2006. A year later,
those requirements will go into place for land-border crossers.
Phasing in these requirements makes sense. The land-border
crossing environment is very different from an air or sea port
of entry, and while we all agree that we have a responsibility
to protect our borders and to know who crosses through our
ports, the process needs to be done in a manner that is least
disruptive to legitimate travelers, businesses, and tourism.
There is no question that this initiative will have an
impact. For individuals, a passport costs approximately $100,
plus an additional $60 if a person wants expedited processing.
For a family of four, the cost to cross the border could be
close to $400.
One need only look at the economy of Laredo to understand
how a small change in the travel document requirement could
have a significant negative impact on the economy. Around $80
billion in goods, 1.6 million loaded trucks, and nearly 7
million other vehicles carrying millions of people flowed
across Laredo border in 2003, the last year for which we have
complete statistics.
A study by the director of the Texas Center for Border
Economic and Enterprise Development at Texas A&M International
University, where we are today, found that a 1 percent decrease
in border crossings would cost Laredo $19 million in additional
sales and increase unemployment by 7.2 percent.
Understandably, the business communities along the border
are concerned, and I am concerned. In 2004, the Perryman Group,
which conducted an analysis at the request of the McAllen
Chamber of Commerce, found that the proposed passport
initiative will cost 19,000 jobs in the border region and
215,000-plus jobs in the state of Texas. That same group said
the initiative would cause the loss of approximately $10
billion in personal income and the loss of approximately $16
billion in gross product for the state of Texas.
Many of the same economic concerns were raised when the US-
VISIT program was implemented in 2004. Thanks to the input of
leaders here in this room, US-VISIT has since processed over 44
million travelers and has led to the identification of over 900
criminals and the denial of 12,000 visas, all the while not
unnecessarily delaying people at ports of entry. But, we know
the greatest challenges for the US-VISIT program are yet to
come.
Nevertheless, US-VISIT has, so far at least, demonstrated
that measured, careful implementation, which includes
consultation with and guidance from local business communities
can improve security while minimizing the disruption of cross-
border travel.
The questions we wish to answer today are what documents
these agencies will accept in lieu of a passport and whether
the agencies can meet the proposed deadline without delaying
cross-border traffic. In November, the Department of State
announced that it is considering SENTRI, NEXUS, and FAST
program cards as acceptable alternatives. We will hear some
testimony about what exactly those cards are. These documents
are currently used, though, by frequent travelers, registered
frequent travelers.
The Department also announced that it anticipates the
border-crossing card or laser visa will also be an acceptable
alternative. I think that is good news and movement at least in
the right direction.
I understand that the Departments of State and Homeland
Security are evaluating other options, including creation of a
new travel document that would be issued to U.S. citizens but
which would also cost less than a passport.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a
submission for the record.]
I look forward to hearing from our government witnesses
today about the progress they have been making in identifying
alternatives to the passport. Before we swear in the witnesses,
though, I want to recognize Mayor Betty Flores. Elected in
1998, the first woman to hold that office in this city's 240-
year history, Mayor Flores has established effective
relationships with state and Federal officials on a broad range
of issues, including border commerce and security.
Mayor Flores, I thank you for being here today and for your
service and work on the important issues that we have discussed
already and that we will discuss during the remainder of this
hearing, and I would like to turn the floor over to you for any
welcoming remarks that you may care to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH G. FLORES, MAYOR, CITY OF LAREDO,
TEXAS
Mayor Flores. Thank you very much, Senator. It is such an
honor for us in Laredo to have you here and to have this
hearing here, because I believe that--and you will find out--
that during the course of the afternoon, you are going to hear
some very specific recommendations, and I think obviously these
recommendations are not only going to protect what we have
built for so many years here, but also are going to encourage
what Congress has in mind, and that is safety and security.
So thank you very much for being here. I want to thank the
staff Committee at the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee
on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship. My name is
Elizabeth G. Flores, and I am the mayor of this great city of
Laredo. Thank you for bringing this Subcommittee to Laredo, to
listen to our community give comments on the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative.
The city of Laredo is at the center of the trade routes
connecting Canada, the United States and Mexico, and I think
you almost gave my speech in your opening remarks, Senator
Cornyn. The port of Laredo is the largest inland port on the
U.S.-Mexico border, and it is located mile marker 1 of
Interstate Highway 35, also known as the NAFTA Highway, mile
marker 1 of the I-69 corridor, and mile marker 1 of the new
Ports-to-Plain Corridor.
The city of Laredo built and owns the four international
bridges that exist at our port. These consist of its two
passenger vehicle bridges and its two commercial bridges which
handle more than 40 percent of all overland trade between the
United States and Mexico. On a daily basis, as you have said,
there are more than 9,000 commercial crossings at our two
commercial bridges and over 10,000 trucks driving through the
streets of Laredo every day.
Notably, Laredo is recognized as the fourth largest Customs
district in the world. With cross-border shipments totaling
over $90 billion recorded in 2004, Laredo is topped only on
this list by the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York
City, and Detroit. As such, Laredo's economy continues to be
strongly tied to border trade and transportation and is
directly impacted by the continuing ability to move border
trade expeditiously.
The success of trade is due to the relationship the
citizens of these communities have and the communication that
takes place on a very daily basis. Citizens in border
communities cross to visit family or friends, to attend
schools, or visit shopping centers. Even our health community
is greatly affected by the cross-border traffic.
You see, our MSA is not totally in the USA. The general
concept of a metropolitan statistical area, an MSA, is one of a
large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities
that have a high degree of economic and social integration with
that nucleus. Texas border communities are like other MSAs in
Texas. Yet we are penalized, because the street that divides
our community is not made of asphalt but of water.
The Rio Grande River, as it is known in Washington, is the
Rio Grande Avenue to many of our citizens. Nuevo Laredo is like
your Arlington, Virginia. Every day people cross the Potomac to
do the very same things we do: visit family, friends,
restaurants and shopping centers. The difference is that when
you cross your river, you do not congest the bridge with
countless regulations.
Every day, Customs agents process more than 20,000
pedestrians and more than 30,000 vehicles, both Mexicans and
U.S. citizens. In April of 2005, the Department of State
announced that U.S. citizens would be required to use a
passport as a required travel document when entering the United
States from Mexico or Canada at the end of 2007, just around
the corner.
The city of Laredo is a community that will be great
affected by this new regulation, as you have well stated. It
supports efforts to secure our country's borders and safeguard
against threats to our Nation. It is imperative, however, that
any and all security initiatives serve the needs of commerce
and the community affected, that the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative not be a financial burden on the citizens or a
detriment to our daily routine, that additional personnel for
the Customs and Border Protection Department be hired for this
new regulation so that we do not add to congestion on our
bridges.
Border communities rely greatly on the economic impact that
tourists bring to communities like Laredo. Any challenges for
one citizen group brings about delays for all citizen groups.
These delay affect the economy of our communities, the state
and our country. I have seen the proposed land-crossing card
that the State Department passed and will show us this
afternoon. Mr. Frank Moss was very nice to receive me in
Washington just two weeks ago.
I think this will be the best and most cost-effective
method that meets the directive of this travel initiative.
Again, we believe that this card should be a universal card,
used for everyone and anyone that crosses a Southern or the
Northern Border. A border identification card could serve many
purposes. Having one uniform card used by all three NAFTA
countries can be filled with all types of biometric
information, a security card that would be uniform, affordable
and accessible and that would be utilized to allow for
expeditious processing at the port of entry and operate in a
similar manner to the frequent traveling cards through the
dedicated SENTRI lanes.
The financial institutions in this country--some are
represented here today-- with their advanced technology can
even help us add a swipe for crossing fees that are deducted
each time we cross the bridges, the toll roads, or get into the
metro or subway, just like I can use my credit or debit card
anywhere. The challenge for our communities is how we make your
technology work at our ports.
It is necessary that the appropriate technology,
infrastructure, training and marketing be in place at the
various ports of entry prior to the implementation of any new
security ID procedure. We ask that you stagger the
implementation of new processes until such time that those
improvements are in place so that commerce and travel will not
be hindered.
Given that this Federal mandate is time-sensitive, it is
critical that funding be made available to port owners to
facilitate such improvements. In Laredo, we understand the
importance of security and appreciate you listening to us
today. I cannot stress enough just how much technology and
personnel are crucial to a successful border port. I have spent
the last eight years visiting Washington and many years before
that advocating for the proper infrastructure for Federal
agencies located here in Laredo.
The Customs agents do wonders with the few resources given
to handle the regulations they adhere to today. If we are to
give the border new regulations, then we need to make sure that
these regulations come with the proper tools. Nothing is more
important to our two cities of Laredo and Nuevo Laredo than the
security of our families and our extended families. We
understand your reasoning, but have concerns with the
methodology.
Creating policy without including the individuals who those
policies will affect is detrimental to the success of any new
regulation, as you have well stated. I ask that you include the
leadership and continue to include the leadership of each
community and create a process that assures safety and economic
security to each port of entry. I ask that the Congress, the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State
spend the necessary time studying the impact of all new
regulations affecting our border, the effect it will have on
the Federal Governmental agencies and the citizens along the
border of these United States, as well as the rest of the
country.
The time it takes to obtain a passport is now extremely
long. We know that there is a lack of personnel to handle
today's traffic much less tomorrow's regulations. I ask that
you do extensive research and continue to examine these
results, as you are doing here today, closely with the
communities affected; also that you extend your deadline so
that together we can guarantee that this new regulation is the
proper course needed to reach the goal that you have set for
the Department.
Cities cannot be asked to handle cross-border traffic, yet
not given the tools or the Federal resources. Laredo has long
carried the burden of Federal regulations and has done it
quietly and proudly, but we need your help now more than ever.
Responding to the legislative decisions of two very powerful
countries has put a great deal of weight on the shoulders of
our citizens for many years. Now in the midst of more serious
security concerns, we know we will continue to play an even
more important role in securing our borders. That means that
when you help our border cities, you help all the people of the
United States. Your leadership now more than ever will assure a
future of economic growth and prosperity that surely leaves no
one behind.
Thank you so much, Senator.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much, Mayor, for those
eloquent remarks and for your leadership on this issue and
other issues. I look forward to continuing to work with you.
Mayor Flores. Thank you, sir. And as you requested, we have
submitted copies 48 hours before the testimony and have extra
copies of this. Thank you so much. Welcome and have a wonderful
afternoon. I know you will get an earful.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much.
I want to extend my personal thanks to Dr. Keck for his
hospitality, and it is great to be back here on your campus. I
was privileged to give the commencement address last year, and
it was a wonderful, uplifting experience, at least for me. I am
not sure about the students, but it was for me.
I also want to recognize Senator Kennedy's staff and other
staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee who are here. Welcome
to Texas, and Senator Kennedy does a great job as the Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and
Citizenship. He is a master legislator, and I learn a lot from
him every day, but it is important that the staff be here and
that members of the United States Senate understand exactly
what life is like here along the border as described by Mayor
Flores and others.
That is the most common question I hear from people on the
border. I was in McAllen and Harlingen on Monday, and the most
common refrain is, ``Why don't people understand what life is
like along the border? '' I say, ``Well, they have not been
here to see it and experience it themselves and talk to people
and sort of let that seep into their pores and their
consciousness.'' So, I think it is important we have this
hearing here today in Laredo, at this wonderful institution,
and we have representation by the staff on the Senate Judiciary
Committee and particularly on the Subcommittee.
We have statements by various members of the Subcommittee,
including one here from Senator Charles E. Schumer, which will
be made part of the record without objection.
I anticipate other senators will likewise have written
statements. Senator Kennedy has a written statement which will
be made part of the record without objection.
I have had a chance to read part of Senator Schumer's
statement before I came here, and of course, as you might
imagine, he is concerned about the impact of this initiative,
not on the Southern Border but on the Canadian border, so this
has a broad impact across the country in a way that we need to
evaluate and we need to plan for.
We are pleased to have a distinguished panel here today
with us from the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of State. I will introduce the panel, and we will
ask them to give brief opening statements. Now, in order to get
our job done here today, we are going to limit the opening
statements, please, to 5 minutes, and then we will have time
for some questions, and then we will move on to our second
panel.
Elaine Dezenski is the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Policy and Planning within the Directorate of Border and
Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland Security,
effective March 1, 2005. Ms. Dezenski is the principal advisor
to the Border and Transportation Security Directorate
Undersecretary for Policy Development in the substantive areas
within that directorate, including immigration and customs
inspections and investigations, cargo and trade policy,
transportation security, counter-narcotics and Federal law
enforcement training. So, I suggest that members of the
audience who are interested in all those issues please give her
an earful before she leaves Laredo. I am sure you have already
taken advantage of that to some extent, but we are glad to have
you here with us. Thank you for coming.
Joining Assistant Secretary Dezenski on our first panel is
Frank Moss, who has already been alluded to. Mr. Moss is the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services, Bureau of
Consular Affairs for the Department of State. Since 2003, he
has been responsible for managing the Department's efforts to
adjudicate and produce passports for more than ten million
American citizens each year.
Why don't we begin with you, Ms. Dezenski, and then we will
turn to Mr. Moss. And, let me remind you, I think the
microphones are on, but if you will pull it close to you so we
can all hear you, and again I would ask you to limit your
statement to 5 minutes. We have a handy light down here to my
right, your left, to give you some indication when time is up,
and then that will provide enough opportunity to ask some
questions by way of follow-up.
So we will turn to you now. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ELAINE DEZENSKI, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
POLICY, OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Dezenski. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am
delighted to be here today in Laredo, together with the State
Department, to talk to you about the progress that we have made
on the Western Hemisphere Initiative. I would like to request
first that my written testimony be submitted for the record.
Chairman Cornyn. It will be without objection.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dezenski appears as a
submission for the record.]
Ms. Dezenski. Thank you. I think it is appropriate that we
are here in Laredo. This is the meeting point or the nexus, if
you will, of a lot of transportation systems and critical
infrastructure. Interstate 35, Mexican highways, railroads,
they all converge here, and when you look at the full picture
and all of the infrastructure combined, you start to get a
sense for the economic and security issues that are faced here.
Chairman Cornyn. Ms. Dezenski, could I ask you to pause for
a moment. I forgot to do something very important and that is
to administer the oath to both you and Mr. Moss.
Ms. Dezenski. Oh, absolutely.
Chairman Cornyn. So if you will stand and raise your right
hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Cornyn. Excuse the interruption. Please proceed.
Ms. Dezenski. No problem. That is important.
Each day, our DHS officers throughout the country inspect
about 1.1 million people at our collective borders. In fiscal
year `05, over 84,000 individuals were apprehended trying to
cross the border with fraudulent documents and claims, and that
is one of the issues that we are trying to address through this
Western Hemisphere Initiative.
The 9/11 Commission report, as was mentioned earlier,
highlighted travel documents and specifically the ability for
people to travel without appropriate identification within the
Western Hemisphere as a security vulnerability, and I think as
many in the border communities know, there has been a
longstanding documentation exemption for travel within the
Western Hemisphere that would include Canada, Mexico, Bermuda,
and the Caribbean.
Congress recognized the issue when it passed the Intell
Reform bill in 2004, and through that mandate, DHS and State
are required to develop and implement a plan to close this
loophole. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is designed
to achieve this by requiring all travelers, including U.S.
citizens, to carry documents that establish two things:
identity and citizenship. And that would now be a requirement
to enter or re-enter the U.S. In essence, we are elevating
travel within the Western Hemisphere to the same travel
document standards that we apply to travel to and from other
parts of the world.
While the goal of the effort is to strengthen border
security and facilitate entry of legitimate travelers, we do
understand the potential implications for industry, business,
the general public, as well as implications for our neighbors
to the north and south. Under the Security and Prosperity
Partnership of North America, or the SPP, we are working
closely with officials in Canada and Mexico to develop
standards for lower-cost, secure proof of status and
nationality documents that would facilitate cross-border
travel.
President Bush, Prime Minister Martin, and President Fox
announced this initiative in March of 2005. They agreed on an
ambitious security and prosperity agenda that will keep our
borders closed to terrorists and open to trade. The SPP is
based on the premise that security and economic prosperity are
mutually reinforcing. Our commitment to work with both Canada
and Mexico to develop secure documents will be consistent with
the Intell Reform mandates and will also take into account the
realities of our mutual borders.
In the proposed Western Hemisphere implementation plan, the
new document requirements are to be rolled out in phases,
providing as much advance notice as possible. Air and sea
requirements are proposed for January of 2007, and land
requirements would be implemented in January of 2008. This
phased implementation acknowledges that we will have the
greatest impact at the land borders and thus we do need more
time.
We also realize that the U.S. passport is not necessarily
the optimal solution, particularly at the land border and for
communities along the Northern and Southern Border areas. The
new statute specifically mandates that agencies implementing
this program consider the concerns of border communities. I
have spoken with hundreds of constituents about their concerns,
from the impact on the tourism industry to work-related travel,
and I can tell you that we are working diligently to balance
convenience and flexibility while closing a security loophole.
As described in our Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
a variety of travel document options are under consideration,
in particular for the land borders. First of all, we are
looking at a State Department-produced alternative called the
passport card. I know Frank is going to discuss that in further
detail, so I will just mention that we see it as a convenient
and affordable alternative to the U.S. passport that would be
the size of a driver's license and roughly had the price point
of a passport. We think that is a good option for border
residents or other frequent travelers across the land border,
as they would be able to apply for this at more than 7,000
passport-acceptance facilities around the U.S.
Second, we are exploring other existing documents, such as
the SENTRI, NEXUS and FAST program cards. These are programs
that are already in place and operating for international
frequent travelers.
In a study performed by BearingPoint for the State
Department, it was found that over 48 percent of land-border
crossings are performed by only 2 percent of travelers. In
other words, out of 100 border crossings, two people make 48
out of those 100 crossings. This is exactly the target
population we want to reach with ``trusted traveler'' type
programs.
The program applicable to Laredo and the rest of the
Southern Border is the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers
Rapid Inspection or SENTRI program. To date, we have issued
75,000 SENTRI cards, and we expect to increase SENTRI
enrollment by 130,000 over the next 2 years. In addition, we
expect to expand to six additional locations at the Southern
Border, including dedicated lanes on Bridge II in Laredo, which
I was able to see today.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that this issue
stems directly from the critical security concern. If
implemented correctly, we will not only be able to close that
loophole but potentially facilitate cross-border traffic as
well. By creating greater assurance of documents presented by
individuals, we can focus our resources on other critical
security concerns such as border-related crime, drug cartels,
coyotes, and other criminal activity that affects communities
on both sides of the border.
The Western Hemisphere Initiative is an important step in
protecting the protecting the homeland, and I know that we are
committed and will use our resources to implement this
initiative by the deadline set forth in law. We look forward to
working with Congress and with the public to ensure that the
needs of border communities, as well as our security
objectives, are addressed by this plan. Thank you.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Ms. Dezenski. I appreciate that
very much, and we will have some questions to follow up in a
moment, but next we will hear from Mr. Frank Moss from the
Department of State.
STATEMENT OF FRANK E. MOSS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
PASSPORT SERVICES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Moss. Thank you, Chairman Cornyn, and thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today in Laredo to describe how the
State Department, working in close partnership with our
colleagues at the Department of Homeland Security plans to
strengthen U.S. border security and facilitate international
travel through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. As Ms.
Dezenski's comments have focused largely on the why we are
doing this, I would like to focus more on how we plan to do
this.
In the aftermath of the events of 9/11, the Department of
State conducted a comprehensive review of the adjudication,
security and issuance of U.S. travel documents, including
passports. As the 9/11 Commission noted, travel documents today
are as valuable to terrorists as weapons, and the U.S. passport
is arguably the most valuable travel and identity document in
the world. Recognizing this reality, the Department of State
has implemented a number of steps to improve the security
features of U.S. passports, to reinforce the underlying
passport adjudication process, and to rationalize requirements
for passport use.
The 9/11 Commission and the Congress, looking at this
issue, then, of course, passed the legislation establishing the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative which Elaine and I are
here to discuss how we will implement today.
As you noted in your opening remarks, Senator, the program
will be implemented in two phases. The first will be at the end
of December 31, 2006, and will apply to air and sea travel to
Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and really throughout all of
Western Hemisphere, and then a year later, December 31, 2007,
it will be implemented for cross land-border travel.
The Department of State is very much aware the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative will have its greatest impact at
the land borders. We also recognize that the U.S. passport may
not be the optimal solution for travel for communities along
the Northern and Southern Borders for a number of reasons,
including cost and size. We recognize further the economic
implications this program has for industry, business, local
governments, and the general public. Thus, in developing this
program, we have been particularly careful to seek to expedite
the travel of frequent travelers, especially those who reside
in border communities.
Based on a study undertaken for the Department of State at
the land borders by BearingPoint Corporation, we estimate that
approximately 23 million U.S. citizens cross the land borders
into Canada and Mexico each year and make a total of nearly 130
million trips. Of these land-border crossers, about one-half
are frequent travelers, making the trip at least once a year,
and as Elaine noted in her testimony, some 2 percent of that
number, or roughly 450,000 people, do 48 percent of the travel.
There is no question that extending WHTI to land-border
crossers is a challenge. Looking at these 23 million land-
border crossers from a document perspective, only 40 percent
report that they possess a U.S. passport or other suitable
document. Over 8 million of them report that they would seek a
passport in the first year, and this is understandably of
intense interest to the Department of State.
Here is how we plan to meet this challenge. We will first
increase our capacity to adjudicate and produce passports and a
new travel card. We already have more than 7,500 passport-
application acceptance centers around the United States,
including 321 in the state of Texas. In addition, we have a
program underway to increase our adjudication capacity for
passports from the current level of 10.1 million we experienced
last fiscal year to 17 million applications in 2008. I want to
take this opportunity thank on behalf of the Department of
State the Congress for their support in funding that expanded
capacity.
We also recognize, as I said earlier, that for a number of
U.S. citizens to make regular land-border crossings and for
families whose international travel consists solely of crossing
the land border, a traditional book-style passport is unlikely
to be the practical document of choice. Therefore, we are
working with DHS to develop a travel card that could provide a
convenient and affordable alternative for land-border crossers,
and I have here for you, Mr. Chairman, a sample of such a
document.
Based on our initial thinking, this card would establish
both a person's identity and U.S. citizenship, would fit easily
in a person's wallet or purse, and would cost significantly
less than a book passport. U.S. citizens who are border
residents or frequent travelers across the land borders would
be able to apply for the travel document at the same 7,500-plus
facilities around the U.S. that currently accept passport
applications. I should add in that regard that we are also
discussing with the U.S. Postal Service expanding that total
program by about 2,000 additional sites, approximately of which
80 are here in the state of Texas.
We also expect that the travel card would be valid for the
same 10-year period for adult and 5-year period for children as
applies to U.S. passports. We recognize that there are a host
of issues that must be addressed thoroughly to implement the
WHTI smoothly and successfully, including public participation
in the regulatory process. With this in mind, we have just
completed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking process
that generated over 2,000 public comments.
A large number of these comments reflected concerns about
the economic impact that the WHTI initiative could have in
discouraging travel across the land borders. We believe that
the solutions we are considering could make the crossing far
more efficient, because all travelers will be identified by a
limited number of highly secure identity and citizenship
documents.
The public, I must add, will have additional opportunities
to review and comment upon our plans as we move into the next
phase of our rulemaking when we issue at least one and more
likely two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking. We are eager to
receive and integrate practical solutions, always keeping in
mind the ultimate goal of making our borders more secure while
also facilitating the movement of people.
Finally, I would be remiss in presenting this testimony if
I did not mention a way for Congress to help the Department of
State meet the challenges embodied in implementing Section 7209
of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
As a result of record passport demand already being
generated by IRTPA and the additional biometric measures we are
incorporating in response to the Enhanced Border Security and
Visa Entry Reform Act, the administration has requested
legislative authority for the State Department to collect and
retain a surcharge to cover the costs generated by Section
7209. The surcharge would be used to support additional
Department of State expenses that we will incur in order to
meet the demand generated by WHTI.
Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important field hearing and inviting me to participate. At this
time, I am prepared to answer any questions that you may have,
and again, I apologize for my informal attire, but sometimes
baggage goes one place and the traveler goes another. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moss appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Cornyn. Well, we are ordinarily pretty informal in
Texas and South Texas in particular, but no problem.
I wanted to start with you, Mr. Moss. Did I understand you
correctly? There are approximately 43 million travelers making
130 million trips a year?
Mr. Moss. I must have misspoken. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, I may have misheard. That is why I
am asking.
Mr. Moss. It is 130 million land-border crossings by 23
million travelers, or when you do the math, approximately five
to five-and-a-half crossings per traveler per year.
Chairman Cornyn. That is why I wanted to ask, because I was
not sure if I understood that correctly. Twenty-three million
travelers, making approximately 130 million trips. How many of
those 23 million currently have passports?
Mr. Moss. Based on the survey that was done for us at the
land-border crossings by BearingPoint this summer, using a firm
called Westat, they reported that 40 percent of the people who
responded to their survey said that they already had either a
passport or one of the other documents that Ms. Dezenski
mentioned in her testimony.
Chairman Cornyn. Okay. Forty percent.
Mr. Moss. Correct.
Chairman Cornyn. In any event, if that is accurate or not,
it sounds like the State Department is going to have to really
gear up to meet this requirement in roughly a year's time, if,
in fact, that deadline holds. Is that correct?
Mr. Moss. You are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. And I
should say in that regard we have already begun to deal with
that demand. In fiscal year 2003, the Department of State
issued about 7.1 million passports domestically.
In fiscal year 2004, that number increased to 8.8 million,
last year to 10.1 million. This year already we have seen an
increase in demand of between 25 and 30 percent so far for this
fiscal year. We had planned to issue and process about 12
million passport applications this year. We actually think the
number will be closer to 13 million, and then we have a plan
that takes us to 15 million capacity by next year, and then a
sustained capacity of 17 million a year, beginning in 2008. We
believe that that will be adequate to meet the demand as we
understand it right now.
Chairman Cornyn. And we understand that a passport costs
roughly $100 currently for an adult. How much would the
passport card alternative cost?
Mr. Moss. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, that is a very good
question. First I should explain what the passport--how we get
to the $100 fee. There are actually three fees that are
involved in a passport. The first is a $30 fee, normally paid
to the U.S. Postal Service or a county clerk of court or a city
official who serves as an acceptance agent. That money does not
come back to the Federal coffers.
There is a $55 passport fee which goes to the Treasury, and
then a $12 security surcharge fee that the Department of State
retains to underwrite the cost of biometric improvements and
other steps we have already taken to strengthen the U.S.
passport.
The price point we are aiming at is to reduce the cost by
at least 50 percent from that $97 figure. We are working not
only with DHS on this objective; we are making decisions within
the Department of State as to how we allocate costs so that we
minimize the cost we actually shift to the bearer of the travel
card.
And the last issue we have underway is a comprehensive
effort with the U.S. Postal Service to reduce the execution fee
or the acceptance agent fee so that they would have, ideally, a
family maximum. All these steps together, we are hoping we will
be able to reduce the fee by at least 50 percent. I am hesitant
to give a price point right now, because we are still looking
at technology issues, and quite honestly, I have not heard back
from the Postal Service as to whether an idea that we have
discussed with them is one that they can accept, but that is
our goal.
Chairman Cornyn. Is that the cost of actually producing the
card, or are there some revenue-raisers embedded in this cost?
Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman, that is actually the cost of
producing the card. There are really two costs we have to think
about in this case. One is the cost of the raw card and then
putting a person's picture on it, and that runs probably about
$4 per card, even with an RFID technology embedded in it.
The other and more significant cost is the cost of actually
having a decision made that an individual is, in fact, a U.S.
citizen and eligible for a passport, and that costs us in the
range of roughly $20 of government personnel time, contractor
time, and obviously expenses like rent. I should say in that
regard we have a network of 17 facilities, including one here
in Houston, Texas, which are able to adjudicate these things
very quickly for travelers. We are looking at a variety of
things to try and bring that cost down.
I should also add that there are some costs which we
currently shift to the passport bearer. These are costs for
what we call citizen services abroad. Our policy decision is we
will continue to embed those costs in the passport and not
shift any of that cost to the travel-card bearer, to reduce the
costs further.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, it has become apparent, just in the
description here, in discussing what alternative documents
might be available, we have got a proliferation of different
documents. I am not being critical necessarily, but I am
wondering to myself how many different types of cards we are
going to be dealing with, and I think ultimately Congress is
going to have to come to terms with whether a single document
as opposed to multiple documents will serve essentially
multiple purposes.
Do you have any observations about that, Ms. Dezenski?
Ms. Dezenski. Sure. If I could elaborate a little bit more
on the concept of the passport card and the connection to the
programs that we have within the Department of Homeland
Security, we have the NEXUS program which is used at the
Northern Border, the SENTRI program at the Southern Border, and
the FAST program which is for commercial drivers. NEXUS and
SENTRI are very similar. They are just administered at the two
borders respectively.
What we are working on right now with the State Department
is a broader architecture for these cards, so we expect, for
example, that the passport card will be something we can issue
in the short term. However, we know that there is technology
available that would allow us to write registered traveler-type
functions to that same card, so if a traveler wanted to, in
fact, use a SENTRI lane or a NEXUS lane, they could at some
point in the future write those types of privileges to the
card. They would have to go through some additional security
checks, but it would be a multi-functional type of platform.
That is one piece of it.
The second piece is we are looking within the Department to
harmonize the registered traveler programs that we have and use
a global enrollment process so it becomes a little bit easier
to facilitate those programs, and it becomes a more harmonized
effort.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, I would just note that, of course,
the US-VISIT program, I know there is a card being designed
with the RFID technology to determine when people actually exit
from the country, the laser visa holders, so we are talking
about a new card there. Congress has mandated the real ID for
state driver's licenses when it is used, of course, for Federal
purposes. It just sounds apparent to me that Congress is going
to have to come to grips there ought to be some economy and
certainly some efficiency obtained by perhaps coming up with
some sort of universal card, or as you point out, one that
could be programmed without the holder having to visit some
location or apply for another privilege under that card, but it
could be used much like a toll tag, I guess, would be used.
Let me ask you, Ms. Dezenski. According to some reports,
the US-VISIT fingerprinting process has actually sped up
inspection times at the port of entry for some travelers.
Presumably, this is because there is improved technology and a
standardized process for travelers and inspectors. Has the
Department conducted any analysis on how the new passport
requirement will impact inspection times?
Ms. Dezenski. We have done some preliminary work, but we
probably will not have a full handle on that until we have a
final decision on what types of documents we will be accepting
under the new requirements. I think it is fair to say that
implementing any kind of additional check has the potential to
add time onto processing, but our goal is to get that delta
down as small as possible or as we have had success in the US-
VISIT entry procedures and actually reducing the facilitation
times, that obviously would be the goal, and we get there
through technology.
RF technology that Frank mentioned earlier, radio
frequency, has some capabilities that can help us with pre-
positioning data, but there are trade-offs. RF technology is in
early stages, and we have important decisions to make about
whether those investments are the ones we want to make now or
whether those are things that we would incorporate in the
future. So I think we have to work through those technological
issues, get a better handle on the cost estimates, make the
final decisions on the types of documents that we want, and
then we will have a much better sense for the implications.
Mr. Moss. Could I add--
Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Moss, please.
Mr. Moss [continuing]. A thought to that as well? And that
is, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned a multiplicity of documents. I
think it is also important to realize that currently a border
inspector could be presented with perhaps 8,000 different types
of birth certificates being presented by American citizens.
There are literally multiple types of driver's licenses being
issued by all the States around the United States. So, in fact,
even though when we run down a list of a travel card, a SENTRI
card, a NEXUS card, et cetera, a new generation border crossing
card, we are actually moving towards, if you will, minimization
of the number of such documents. We believe especially in the
case of the travel card, that the inspectors will have
confidence in the underlying integrity of the process that led
to the issuance of that, and that may actually have positive
effects on our ability to make the border work more smoothly.
So we are trying to do a variety of things here. But we are
also confronted with the reality right now where literally you
can present one of 8,000 different types of birth certificates,
and that is obviously an impossible function for the inspector
to determine whether the one you present happens to be valid
for that municipality or county at that date. Thank you.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, I think we all understand the
rationale behind a secure card that has integrity because of
the proliferation of document fraud and counterfeiters that are
capable of producing the most realistic-looking fraudulent
copies of anything from a passport to a driver's license to
other things. So, it is certainly important to have some sort
of secure identification, and that is a staggering figure, Mr.
Moss. I had not heard that before.
One of the frustrations for non-U.S. citizens is that the
inspections and standards vary from port to port. For example,
I hear there are times when the same tourist faces different
standards at different ports of entry. What steps is the
Department of Homeland Security taking, Ms. Dezenski, to ensure
consistent application of the law along the border with regard
to ports of entry?
Ms. Dezenski. I think we do a pretty good job of training
our folks to implement our regulations and our rules in an
effective fashion, and we certainly strive to do it
consistently. There are lots of factors that go into a process
when someone approaches a point of entry, and our inspectors
look for different types of behavior patterns, different types
of indicators that give us a sense for whether that person is a
risk or not a risk or should be pulled aside for secondary or
let by with no further issue, so it is hard for me to
specifically say that it is going to be the same amount of
processing time for a particular person.
It really depends on the situation at that POE, but I can
tell you that we do strive to ensure that our border inspectors
have the training that they need to ensure that there is a
consistent application of rules and regulations.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, I would want to mention to you a
conversation I had with former Secretary Tom Ridge in talking
about the laser visa and the implementation of US-VISIT. We
were successful in getting a rule changed that would increase
the length of time a laser visa holder could come from Mexico
into the United States from 72 hours to 30 days.
But, Secretary Ridge told me at the time that that was done
that the goal was to treat all of our visitors, all of our
guests, no matter what country they come from, precisely the
same. And, certainly I am going to hold his successor,
Secretary Cherthoff, and the Department to that standard. I do
not see any reason why there should be inconsistency between
ports of entry. I do not think there should be any inconsistent
treatment with regard to visitors depending on which country
they come from. We ought to strive for a goal of uniform,
courteous treatment to all of our lawful visitors in this
country.
Finally, let me just mention sort of just a personal
observation. I have been struck, as I have traveled along our
U.S.-Texas border with how much time and effort we put in to
screening, credentialing, and burdening lawful traffic and
commerce across the border. That is not meant to be a
criticism, but I must say that it is a stark contrast with the
complete unwillingness, at least until recently, of the Federal
Government to live up to its obligations to enforce the border
security and our immigration laws between the bridges and
between the lawful ports of entry.
And, I look forward to working with other members of the
Congress and the President, to try to come up with a
comprehensive policy that does not just burden lawful commerce
and legitimate visitors who certainly are not going to come
here to do us harm. Typically they are going to come here and
spend money. They are going to stimulate the economy. They are
going to create jobs along the border region.
And, we simply need to narrow the gap between the uniform
treatment and make sure that we do treat all aspects of border
entry the same, while we need lawful means for people to enter.
We need to know who they are, why they are here. We also need
to deal with the vast gaps in our border security between the
bridges, which I think are obviously the cause of a lot of
concern to a lot of Americans, which are stimulating a lot of
debate, important debate.
It is ironic that the Federal Government has so long
neglected its responsibilities along the border. Now the border
is getting a lot of attention, and I will tell you from the
standpoint of my constituents, not all of it is welcome. But,
we look forward to continuing to work with the Department of
State and the Department of Homeland Security in the discharge
of your responsibilities. We appreciate your service to our
country, and we appreciate your presence here today.
I hope you will stay a while, and you will get to know a
little bit more about this region, because it is unique. We do
have some wonderful opportunities and some challenges, but
nothing we cannot get through by working together. So, thank
you very much for being here today.
Ms. Dezenski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cornyn. Could we have our second panel of
witnesses come forward, please, and take your seat.
[Pause.]
Chairman Cornyn. Gentlemen, could I ask you, please, to
stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much.
We are pleased to have such a distinguished second panel
with us today, and these are citizens from the border community
who I think have an awful lot of personal insight and expertise
to offer to the subject matter we are discussing today.
Our first witness is Pete Sepulveda, Chairman of the Border
Trade Alliance. The Border Trade Alliance represents
individuals and businesses that conduct cross-border NAFTA
commerce.
Also joining us today is Dennis Nixon. Mr. Nixon is
Chairman and CEO of the International Bank of Commerce. He
represents the largest bank holding company in the state of
Texas, whose corporate headquarters remains on the U.S.-Mexico
border.
And, finally, Guillermo Trevino joins us today. Mr. Trevino
is board Chairman of the Laredo Chamber of Commerce and former
Chairman of the Laredo Board of Development Manufacturing
Association.
I welcome you here today on behalf of the Judiciary
Committee and particularly the Subcommittee on this important
topic. We will be happy to hear any opening statement you would
care to give. If you would hold it to 5 minutes or so, then we
can get around to some Q&A, which I think may be productive as
well. But, Mr. Sepulveda, we would be glad to hear from you
first.
STATEMENT OF PETE SEPULVEDA, JR., CHAIR, BORDER TRADE ALLIANCE,
LAREDO, TEXAS
Mr. Sepulveda. Thank you, Chairman Cornyn. The BTA is a
grassroots organization consisting of individuals, entities,
and businesses which conduct legitimate cross-border business
in the NAFTA marketplace. As such, we have a unique perspective
on the challenges facing our land borders. We believe that as a
nation, we can have a regulatory and enforcement environment
that result in both increased border security and improved
facilitation of legitimate trade and travel.
I would like to make a couple of points, and I will begin
with the BTA believes that there are certain alternatives to
the passport that we must continue to accept at United States'
ports of entry. In their Federal Register notice, the
Departments of State and Homeland Security indicated the NEXUS
cards, SENTRI cards, Border Crossing Cards, and FAST driver
identification cards may be accepted i lieu of a passport.
The BTA is adamant in its belief that these identification
cards recognized by the Departments of Homeland Security and
State should be deemed acceptable alternatives to a passport
for hemispheric travel. Our recommendation in this area is
based on the fact that holders of these documents have been
vetted through various security check databases and that the
documents are tamper-resistant, machine-readable, and
technologically advanced, including such features as
biometrics.
SENTRI cards, which give holders access to special commuter
lanes on the border, are not a practical alternative for all
border residents, as these lanes in but three of over 40 ports
of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border, although some more are on
the way.
Second, we urge, the Departments to conduct a feasibility
assessment of establishing a traveler document that may be
obtained by U.S. and Canadian citizens that confirms one's
identity and citizenship and can be placed in one's wallet,
providing more durability than the booklet-style passport. Some
have referred to this as a North American Travel Document.
Although we cannot speak to the name, we certainly agree that
this concept should be considered as an alternative for the
long-term implementation of this initiative.
Third, it is imperative that this initiative be fully
integrated with other efforts currently underway or proposed.
The BTA believes that this new requirement has the potential to
inflict a new burden on travelers, especially casual travelers
across the U.S. and Canadian borders, and it could put tourist
dollars at risk. Border region retail sales and tourism stand
to suffer if visitors are not in possession of proper proof of
citizenship.
A study conducted by the University of Texas at Pan
American cites Winter Texans' impact at an annual contribution
of over $420 million to the area's economy in the Rio Grande
Valley of Texas.
The BTA is concerned that the burden of the cost of
obtaining a passport could inflict on the working families of
the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders. For example, a family
of four living in South Texas who routinely crosses the border
to visit family and friends in mexico may not have the means to
secure the requisite number of passports for each member of
their family. At $97 per passport for individuals over 16 years
of age and $82 for individuals under 16, this rule has the
potential create a huge financial burden for many citizens who
live in some of our country's poorest communities.
Fourth, making the passport the only acceptable document
raises additional concerns, in particular the ability of the
Department of State to issue on a timely basis the potential
several million new passports that may be required. This
initiative could hinder a lawful traveler's ability to leave or
enter the United States. Although we have seen assurances by
the Department of State to issue many more passports on an
annual basis, we still have very clear in our memories the
experience of the issuance of millions of laser visas for
Mexican travelers who suffered through long waits for their
visas.
Fifth, we must focus on the intent of the law and not just
on the deadline. The BTA recommends that on regular intervals
between now and December 31, 2007, the responsible Departments
assess their ability to meet this deadline, with the
understanding that a final decision on the deadline be made 6
months prior, to ensure that the Departments are fully prepared
to implement the rule without negatively impacting the
traveling public.
The BTA has serious concerns about the effect this rule
will have on casual, as well as frequent travelers, across our
shared borders. The communities on both sides of the U.S.-
Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders are inextricably linked, both
culturally and economically. Thus we are reluctant to support
any program that puts our unique cross-border relationships at
risk and therefore urge the Department of Homeland Security and
Department of State to commit to undertaking an extensive
outreach campaign aimed at the traveling public.
Mr. Chairman, the BTA is committed to working with you and
your Subcommittee to ensure that by simply focusing on a
deadline, we are not foregoing improvements to the security of
the homeland, to the welfare of the border region, and to the
relationship with our two most important partners, Mexico and
Canada.
The BTA remains committed to supporting initiatives that
will make our homeland more secure while making the traveling
experience for our visitors and for U.S. citizens a better one.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to
submit our comments for the record, and I look forward to
working with you on this issue in the coming months.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Sepulveda. And any other
comments you would like to make part of the record will be made
part of the record without objection.
Mr. Sepulveda. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sepulveda appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Trevino, we would be glad to hear from
you next.
STATEMENT OF GUILLERMO TREVINO, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE LAREDO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, LAREDO, TEXAS
Mr. Trevino. Senator Cornyn, my name is Guillermo Trevino,
and I am Chairman of the board of directors of Laredo Chamber
of Commerce and a member of a privately-held business with
operations on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Like most
of the 850 active business members of the Laredo Chamber of
Commerce, my businesses depend on the legal flow of commerce
and visitors between Northern Mexico and the U.S.
We have a keen interest in border policy, because border
policy directly impacts people's lives and businesses. The
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is not an abstract
discussion for us, because the stakes are high and the effect
could be huge on an area of the country that already faces
stiff economic challenges. Before any policy is adopted, it
should meet a variety of tests.
The first should be, Do no harm. In medicine, this is
important, because you want to make sure the cure is not worse
than the disease. With this policy is there a better than
average probability that the rules will make the overall
situation worse instead of better? Chances are good that the
WHTI will add crossing time to the entry and exit process.
People do not dispute this. The discussion generally centers on
how much of an increase.
Any added time will add congestion to an already time-
consuming cross process. Anecdotally, we are already hearing
from visitors that though they are not eliminating trips to the
border, they are reducing the frequency because of the wait
time. A reduction in trips means a blow to the local, state and
national economies of the U.S. and Mexico.
Second test: Will it achieve the policy objective of making
the United States safer? All our representatives in Washington
are in a tough position, because voters are demanding that they
do something to make them feel more secure, and building walls
and increasing requirements for legal commerce and travel
sounds good and can be implemented, because law-abiding
citizens will comply. But will it deter international criminals
and terrorists any more than our current systems?
Relying simply on this increased documentation requirement
alone I do not believe will improve the situation. Added
congestion means more opportunity for errors and people
slipping by already overworked people at check points.
Increased staffing and manpower will be necessary to ensure and
act on information generated by the system, and we are back to
the fundamental flaw and current problem at our borders: that
we do not have adequate staffing and manpower at our ports of
entry. Why implement a new process at increased expense to
people who may have difficulty affording it when we cannot
currently staff and administer existing processes and
procedures?
Third test: Is it possible and at what cost? We have a seen
a variety of systems and plans being tested, from current bar
code technology to biometrically triggered radio frequency
identification devices. There is no question that some system
can be deployed to speed things, but the current plans we have
seen so far are cost-prohibitive and years away from real-world
use. The danger we see is that we have a promising technology
like some form of RFID that we are told that even Wal-Mart will
implement soon.
Homeland Security says that it will be ready by the date
necessary to implement WHTI. The technology has limited success
or is too expensive at the time of implementation, but Homeland
Security implements the overall plan without the key promising
technology that we are told will fix everything, and we have
huge delays at ports of entry.
I spoke with someone from Wal-Mart after a recent
presentation on US-VISIT's passive RFID tests, and Wal-Mart has
delayed their hard RFID deadlines, because they are having
serious data integrity issues. The pushback will be, But it
only took us X number of years to implement after we started
the program. But over the course of those X years, commerce is
interrupted, businesses close or suffer, and trade patterns are
changed.
We think about things like wait times in micro. It will
only add 5 seconds; the passport will only cost $97. But just
as when you multiply wait times, when you multiply the number
of people who do not have a passport, who might cross into
Mexico times $97, you are talking about a significant amount of
money that will not be spent in local communities and will come
out of already strapped budgets.
WHTI or any documentation program cannot do the job alone
but must be part of a comprehensive plan that also takes into
account immigration reform, because as important an issue as
WHTI is by itself, it is part of the overall problem of legal
immigration. The best estimates I have seen for growth in
Mexican GDP next year are around 3.5 percent. According to an
economist I spoke with the other day, the Mexican economy would
need to grow 7 percent to create enough jobs to employ everyone
entering the workforce in any given year.
The difference between jobs created and population growth
will be the approximate size of the number of new workers
entering the U.S. from Mexico, either legally or illegally,
next year. Please check these figures with your own staff, but
the point is extremely important. If the Mexican economy grows
at the best possible rate next year, there will still be a huge
number of people looking for work, no matter how many agents we
add or fences we build.
Curiously, the problems we face on the Southern Border are
also what will make the United States stronger and more
competitive in the future, because these are young workers, and
as our population ages, we will need more and more young
workers. By allowing and essentially encouraging huge amounts
of illegal immigration by not finding a way to work them into
some kind of legal framework, we weaken Mexico's ability to
function as a normal state. How can a city or region function
normally when large percentages of their most productive human
capital have left? We also provide financial support to people
involved in criminal activity, and we drive a large part of the
U.S. and Mexican economy into the shadows, and that is not good
for any society or government.
So in closing, I would again like to thank the Committee
for listening to these comments and ask that you remember to
apply the tests I mentioned, but the most important one is,
first, do no harm. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trevino appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Trevino. You have put this
in an important overall context. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Nixon, we would be glad to hear your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS E. NIXON, CEO AND CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL
BANK OF COMMERCE, LAREDO, TEXAS
Mr. Nixon. Thank you, Senator. I will move quickly, because
on the border, we do not ever want to get the red light.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nixon. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dennis Nixon, and I am
CEO and Chairman of International Bank of Commerce. It is the
largest--
Chairman Cornyn. Could I get you to pull your microphone a
little closer to you, so everybody else can hear?
[Pause.]
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nixon. As the largest bank holding company in the State
of Texas whose headquarters remains on the U.S.-Mexican border,
I can tell you that the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
will have tremendous impact on our customers, the communities
we serve, and the Texas and American economy.
This issue has drawn attention from coast to cast, and the
majority of the focus has been on either the type of document
we should use or how much it will cost the average American
family. But the real issue is getting lost in the debate. For
Americans, crossing the Rio Grande should be no different than
crossing the Potomac. Just like crossing the Potomac, crossing
the Southern Border as a U.S. citizen has normally not required
producing identification document.
What if it took you 4 hours just to reach the Key Bridge in
Arlington, Virginia, on your daily commute to the Capitol? And
then upon arriving at the bridge, you had to stop, show your
identification, and answer a bunch of questions--Where are you
going? Where have you been--all consuming additional time.
This debate has wrongly focused on what we are going to do
at the bridge, when the problem is we cannot even get to the
bridge, so it makes no difference what document you order. You
are just going to add to the logjam to the border.
The biggest issue with the proposed rules and the programs
is as a country, we have become so wrapped up in specific
procedures that we have lost sight of the big picture and those
procedures adding value. We increase procedures without
corresponding staffing that needs to go with it. We frustrate
the very people who seek nothing more than to spend money in
our country, visit families or conduct business. We are truly
destroying the dream of NAFTA.
Eighty-four percent of all the border crossings occur at
land ports. Space is at a premium at these bridge crossings and
begs these questions: How will American citizens be processed
if they fail to produce the correct documentation? Where will
they be processed? Where will they be detained during that
processing? And how will this affect growing wait times already
caused by US-VISIT? Will we require extensive exit procedures
to ascertain that U.S. citizens have the necessary
identification to depart and re-enter the country?
The Department of Homeland Security will brag that US-VISIT
program does not apply to Americans, and for others, it only
takes 15 seconds to pass through the inspection process. Tell
that to the last person in the queue, the American, the
Guatemalan, the Canadian or the Australian. The fact is no
matter who you are or what country or hemisphere you come from,
you are commingled in the queue until you get to the bridge.
You have a long wait.
Texans cross the Rio Grande, as those in Virginia and
Maryland cross the Potomac, to eat, to shop, to see a concert,
conduct business or visit family. Our economies are intertwined
as a result of this, and therefore, any proposed rules that
affect how people are entering the country, specifically the
Southern Border, are of great interest to us. Today bridge
crossings are down in Laredo, and people are crossing less
because of hassles of getting back into the United States. Even
with this slow-down, wait times are up.
As recently reported in USA Today and confirmed by GAO,
delays at airport customs get worse; long lines and
understaffing at Customs checkpoints continue to worsen. So if
there is not enough staff to accommodate 16 percent of the
border crossings, then how in the world does the Government
expect to handle 84 percent of the crossings that enter the
country through the land ports like Laredo? Even with this
report on record, DHS continues to rave about the success of
the US-VISIT. These accolades are clearly without merit.
Back in September, we logged numerous complaints from our
customers in Laredo and San Antonio and other markets as a
result of the extensive wait and delays during Diez y Seis,
Mexican Independence Day, weekend. This is an important holiday
wherein thousands of Mexicans travel to the U.S. to vacation
and spend huge sums of money buying goods and services in the
United States. While many of our customers withstood long lines
of up to 4 hours in their attempt to enter the United States,
others attempted to cross at another bridge in Laredo only to
discover that it closes at midnight.
This seems to be a never-ending problem that occurs during
peak periods and holidays. If we know when holidays are and can
anticipate other peaks, then why cannot CBP adequately prepare
for the high number of visitors expected during these dates?
The ripple effect of this lack of preparation translates into
fewer tourists and business customers coming into Laredo in
order to avoid the long lines and delays.
If frequent travelers pose no risk, then they should be
allowed to cross our borders expeditiously. That way, we do not
interrupt the flow of people and commerce unnecessarily, but
frequent travel programs have not worked because once a drug
seizure is made, these frequent traveler lanes become parking
lots just like the other lanes because inspections are then
intensified.
For years, IBC strongly supported additional funding for
Customs. However, today what we have witnessed is that as we
begin losing CBP officers through retirement, transfer and
attrition, new DHS resources are being applied to the Border
Patrol on other enforcement duties. This means that more
emphasis is being placed on illegal immigration or drug
enforcement, while people and cargo that are attempting to
enter our country legal channels suffer as a result of
understaffing. We seem to be devoted to damaging our
relationship with legal visitors.
This is a major reason why we oppose the requirement to
force U.S. citizens to use passports to re-enter the United
States. We oppose the requirement of any document as a general
use instrument, because we have neither the infrastructure nor
the staffing to handle the capacity at the land ports. The
inspection of any document held by a U.S. citizen will delay
entry and create more problems, because inspection equals time,
which equals delay.
No uniform document should be required without the
mandatory requirement to add staffing that is necessary. Again,
we oppose any such document requirement until DHS can prove to
Congress that DHS has the adequate staffing to oversee such a
process. They have not proven that at the airports.
As a country, we have become so wrapped up in the specific
procedures, we have lost sight of the big picture. The national
dialogue on illegal immigration has reached a fever pitch, and
unfortunately, issues such as wait times at the bridges are
getting lost in the shuffle.
We have also heard a lot of people talking about
constructing a wall on the Southern Border in the name of
security. My question is: Is that really security? Then why are
not we talking about building a wall on the Northern Border?
After all, the 9/11 terrorists did not come through the
Southern Border. They entered our country by legally crossing
the U.S.-Canadian border.
We need a systematic approach that includes reform of our
immigration laws and measures that truly help security and do
not merely provide Americans a false sense of security we have
added more process. These feel-good procedures are destroying
our ability to cross our borders.
After all, with the increased procedures and without the
corresponding staffing that needs to go with it, we frustrate
the very people who seek nothing more than to spend money in
our country, visit family, and conduct business, and if
procedural, bureaucratic red tape continues to hamper the flow
of goods, services, and visitors, then it is the American
economy that will suffer the most, and that means the
terrorists will have won in the name of security because we
have lost sight of the big picture.
We must stop imposing processes on the system in the name
of anti-terrorism, because feel-good procedures are clogging
the borders, killing the economy, and causing the loss of jobs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nixon appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Nixon. Well, you raise a
lot of important questions about our commitment in terms of
staffing and making sure that whatever requirements are
ultimately posed are administered in a way that is, in the end,
counter-productive of legal commerce.
I noticed that the travel document requirements currently,
under the current deadline, assuming they hold, are scheduled
to go into effect at the end of the calendar year, in the
middle of the busy commercial travel period when tourism is
perhaps at a peak. Based on your experience--and I think I know
what you might say about it, based on what you said about Diez
y Seis--how concerned should we be about imposing any new
travel requirement during that time of year, as opposed to some
other alternative strategy?
Mr. Nixon. Well, as we have talked about since we are so
understaffed and the lines and the traffic congestion is so bad
already, you know, adding the checking of another document
which currently people who are U.S. citizens do not get their
documents checked--I have crossed the border--I mean, I do not
know--maybe thousands of times, and I have never been asked to
produce a document that identifies myself, and so we just know
through experience that a document inspection is going to cause
delays.
So, I mean, obviously the Christmas season is the busiest
time of the year. That and Easter and some of these Mexican
holidays would be absolutely the worst time, but any process
that is going to add inspection of millions of more people who
heretofore have been asked simply, Are you a citizen, and in
many cases pass on through is going to disrupt a lot of people.
I mean, if you have got three people in a car and suddenly you
are fumbling around and trying to gather documents and having
somebody swipe that document or review that document or in some
way look at it or being the questioning process is going to add
significant time to that process. We just do not have the staff
in place to do that.
Chairman Cornyn. I have heard it commented upon that one of
the problems we have with trying to staff up Federal agents at
the border is just our inability to train sufficient numbers
fast enough in order to get up to speed. Currently Border
Patrol agents, we are told in Congress that they have no more
than a capacity to train about 1,500 a year, and under some
proposals, including the one Senator Kyl and I have proposed,
we will call for basically doubling the number of Federal
agents on the border over the next 5 years, but obviously there
is a huge challenge associated with that.
But, it seems to me one of the other challenges--and it may
not be as clear--is sort of the turnover in agents and perhaps
the lack of sensitivity or awareness of some of these agents
who may come from different places to the people and the
customary flow and, frankly, who the frequent travelers are,
because a lot of what a Border Patrol agents call upon is their
judgment and intuition to determine whether a more lengthier,
in-depth investigation ought to take place.
What is your observation, Mr. Nixon, about the Federal
agents that are at the border in terms of how well they are
trained to do their job? How much variation is there in terms
of how they treat people or travelers, and is that a real
concern?
Mr. Nixon. Well, I think it has always been a concern. I
mean, we have been working with these issues for a long time,
and I would have to say that by and large, most of the people
that man those positions are good people. They are trying to do
their job well, and there is no debate about that, but it is
always a wild card situation, and there has been issues always
over long periods of time where we have had abuse and, you
know, management processes that change. One manager has a
different attitude about how to do the same job as another--as
a different manager, and so things change, and there is a
variety.
As it was reported early and testified early, there is no
cookie-cutter approach to inspection and there cannot be,
because if you take away the judgment of the inspector, then
you have lost the ability to make those quality assessments
that are necessary to do the job. And so it is very difficult
to create a mandate to process people in 30 seconds or 15
seconds. And so that is what happens a great deal, and we have
a lot of debate over whether people should be checked so much
in primary and so much in secondary.
And we have had that debate since I have been involved in
it for 25 years, and we see Customs and Immigration inspectors
that have held people up in the primary lanes for multiple
questioning and opening trunks and doing all kinds of
inspection process, which we are clearly told by their
management people they should not do that; they should refer
those people to secondary.
So all of those kinds of stumbling processes create delay,
and when you have got traffic backed up for miles, adding a
minute or 2 minutes or 3 minutes to an inspection, when you
multiply that times 1,000 cars, it just--the numbers are just
catastrophic in terms of the wait time. And so we have to do
more to get the numbers up.
We have a border that has exploded. NAFTA has been a
tremendous success. The numbers are growing rapidly. It is--we
are expanding at seven, but we are staffing at three, and we
have been doing that for years, and then we are diverting
commercial and visitation-type inspection people off into
enforcement, and we have not really added people in the primary
areas that we need. We have many of our bridges are not being
fully used, and all inspection lanes many times are not being
fully used. We have erratic behavior, depending on whether we
are in overtime periods or not in overtime periods.
We have got work rules that are difficult. You know, there
is a whole laundry list of problems that we have in the
administration of the border that need to be solved and worked
on, not only that, including just the pure size of these
facilities. What happens to all these people who do not hear
the message and go across the border during this period, and
then we do not let them back in because they do not have a
document. We are going to keep American citizens out.
And if you have been down to the border, where would you
put 500 or 800 American citizens, trying to process back into
the United States without a proper document, one of those 8,000
birth certificates that they would not have on them? I have not
found my birth certificate for years, so I do not know where I
would find it. So it is very difficult for me to believe that
any of that is going to be handled properly, especially in a
short-term period when we know that it takes anywhere from 18
months to 2 years to recruit, train, and deploy an agent, so
where are we going to get that done in a 2-year time frame to
implement this?
Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Trevino, you touched on a critical
issue in your testimony, and that is how comprehensive reform
will impact border trade and security. You note in your
testimony that when the flow of people is underground and
outside of the law, we provide financial support to people
involved in criminal activity. I could not agree with you more.
By improving legal channels for workers to enter the United
States when no U.S. worker is available, we can improve border
security, I believe, and free up resources that could be
dedicated to improving law enforcement. Stated another way,
illegal immigration actually hurts legal immigration by
diverting resources and slowing down inspections for legitimate
travelers.
What are your thoughts on how improved legal channels will
benefit legitimate trade and commerce?
Mr. Trevino. Well, first off, I was very encouraged to read
your letter to the editor in the Laredo Morning Times the other
day. I think it was on Thursday. It was exactly spot on. I
mean, we need to go ahead and figure out ways to separate legal
people or people crossing for legitimate reasons from people
who are not. To that point, I think the majority of people
crossing into the United States, either legally or illegally,
want to cross for legitimate business reasons.
And by not finding a way to accommodate that, we are
pushing people who would normally be actively involved in the
regular economy, guys just looking for jobs, we push them to
areas and meeting with people who are involved in criminal
activity. So by the nature of our own policies, we are driving
people into the shadows and into connections and into working
with people who are involved in crime, so it is necessary to
figure out a way to separate out legitimate commerce,
legitimate people crossing for legitimate reasons, and people
who are not.
Once we do that and we figure out a way, which is not an
easy task--I do not envy your position in trying to figure out
this mess of immigration. But legal immigration as opposed to
illegal immigration, I think, is the key to everything here,
because once you separate that out, you are right. You free up
resources for the Border Patrol and everything else.
The person crossing Dennis's ranch at two o'clock in the
morning, the probability is raised that that person is a bad
guy, instead of a person looking for a job in the United
States. How you deal with that person changes radically, so
what we try and do is we try and raise the probability of the
people who are crossing for illegal reasons, and enforcement
and how we deal with enforcement should change.
I mean, you talked about building a wall. Dennis talked
about building a wall. If you have 400,000, 500,000, 600,000
people unable to get a job in Mexico and you build a wall and
you stop it--let's say it is successful. Let's say for some
reason we spend tens of billions of dollars. It is successful.
Now you have 6-, 700,000 people in Mexico without a job, and
what will that do to the stability of Mexico?
You know, we talk about the problems we are having in Iraq.
They pale in comparison from a national security perspective
with an unstable Mexico, and I am not suggesting that Mexico
will be come unstable, but that point is real. If people are
talking about completely shutting off the Southern Border, what
are the ramifications? It is a complicated issue, and there is
no simple solution to it, regardless of the sound bites on
television or in the paper. And I was very encouraged by your
letter to the editor, because it acknowledged these facts.
Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sepulveda, the Border Trade Alliance consists of both
individuals and businesses, many of whom support increased
border security. Your organization, therefore, I think, has an
important perspective on this issue. Can you tell the Committee
whether any security improvements implemented in the past have
actually made inspection processes faster or more reliable for
your members?
Mr. Sepulveda. I think with any new implementation, any
changes in law, if it comes with the resources that are
necessary for technology, for staffing, then the chances of
that succeeding are good. I think what we have seen in the past
is changes that are made, and the proper or necessary resources
have not been there to get the staffing or the technology in
place.
One example is the laser visas. I remember when the laser
visa issue came up, and that was implemented, and I am speaking
for the port of entry in Brownsville, because that is where I
work for Cameron County. Even though individuals might have had
the laser visa, DHS did not have or Department of State did not
have the equipment or technology at the port of entry to be
able to read that visa. So unless changes and implementations
are done with the necessary funding to go with them, it is not
going to work.
Those days of the laser visas, a lot of people stood in
lines for hours and hours. A lot of people waited for months
and months to get an appointment just to get a laser visa, and
then when they try to cross into the U.S., you know, they found
out that, you know, the laser visa would not be used, because
they could not read it. So I think one of the things that needs
to happen also for any type of change to have any success is
for the Federal Government to work hand in hand with the local
community.
The local community, we are there 365 days a year. We know
what goes on every single day of the year, and if there is any
chance for success, then the local community has to get
involved so that it can make it work and so that it can assure
the local community that the economy will not be implemented in
a negative manner.
Chairman Cornyn. I have been intrigued by the testimony we
heard earlier with regard to the small percentage of travelers
across the border who account for the huge number of trips. Two
percent of the border travelers account for almost 48 percent
of border crossings. I confess that I am mystified why we have
not been able to come up with a good solution at the airports
on this issue.
I am one of those who travels probably more than the
average individual by airplane, but seems to me that we have
not moved quickly enough to let people perhaps sacrifice some
of their personal privacy to have a background check and get a
card or get certified, so that you can move across the border
in an expedited manner.
I would be interested in, Mr. Sepulveda, your observations
or your opinion on how we implement a registered traveler
program for those frequent travelers without adversely
affecting the occasional traveler, such as the Winter Texan
that comes down from cold places to warm places like this and
spends a lot of money and helps the economy.
Mr. Sepulveda. Well, I am probably going to say that the
majority of the Winter Texans that, you know, visit or frequent
South Texas do not have a passport, and basically what happens
right now is, you know, as they go into Mexico and when they
come back, a lot of times, the officer at the primary
inspection booth will not ask for an identification, and in the
event that they do, a driver's license is what is used right
now as that identification or a birth certificate.
Now, in South Texas we also have the same situation with
spring-breakers. During the month of February and March, we get
spring-breakers who go to South Padre Island, and I can tell
you during Texas week, daily we get about 25,000 students that
cross from Brownsville into Matamoros, and obviously those
25,000 come back into the United States. So I think it needs to
be--those type of issues and situations need to be treated
differently.
Obviously Winter Texans, spring-breakers, and other
visitors from throughout the U.S. are not going to have a
passport, are not going to have a border-crossing card, are not
going to have a SENTRI card or a FAST card, so I think we need
to find a national card that is going to have the information
that is required to prove citizenship.
Now, the BTA has not taken a position on the use of a
driver's license or a birth certificate for proof of
citizenship. We are open to the discussion, but we also
understand that there are some issues in that, because, you
know, we have got 50 states. That means that there is 50
different type of documents and driver's licenses that would be
used to prove citizenship.
So I think as far as the BTA is concerned, a lot of our
sponsors are from the border area. We want to be able to have a
seat at the table when these discussions are being taken place.
When discussions of implementations are taking place, we want
to be there so that we can provide our input and ensure that
our economy along the border is not going to be negatively
impacted by this change in law.
Mr. Nixon. Senator, could I comment on that issue?
Chairman Cornyn. Yes, Mr. Nixon, please.
Mr. Nixon. One of the disappointments in the FAST lane
process in the Southern Border has been that most of the
bridges, you cannot access them. Once the traffic builds up for
any kind of activity level, then you get into--
Chairman Cornyn. You cannot access the FAST lane?
Mr. Nixon. You cannot access the bridge, and so you really
do not gain anything by having this process, then we have found
over time that--I know that there has been several areas where
FAST processing has been tried, but as soon as somebody in the
underworld determines that that is an easy way to get across,
that they get into that process, and they may have a drug
interdiction, and then they revert to intensified inspections
again to avoid using it as a drug lane.
So this whole infrastructure problem that I talked about
earlier is a real problem unless we have the ability to really
segregate people. You know, at the airport, it is reasonably
simple, because when you get off an airplane, you know, and you
have all the different queues and you can go to different
areas. The problem that we have at the border, land borders,
especially coming out of Mexico, is that you normally enter
those areas in very restricted areas, and the traffic builds
up, and to try to break into one of those lanes, you give up
your life.
And so to get to a point where you can even enter a FAST
lane, you may have to wait an hour, so you really diminish the
capability of doing that, plus then you get into the process of
if you have a drug interdiction, that may stop or slow down
that lane for a long period of time, because there is
intensified inspections that go on, trying to prevent that from
occurring. So it all just continues to domino into delay,
delay, delay, so there needs to be a massive review of the
infrastructure and the personnel on the borders before we go
put more process into an already dysfunctional system.
Chairman Cornyn. Well, gentlemen, thank you for your
testimony today. It has been enormously helpful to me
personally and I know to the other members of the Subcommittee
and the Judiciary Committee. We certainly have our work cut out
for us.
We are going to be undertaking the whole issue of border
security and comprehensive immigration reform in the January
and February time frame in the United States Senate. These
issues that we are talking about here today, as complex and as
difficult as they are, probably pale in complexity to those
issues, but they are all important. And, of course, we want to
make sure that Americans are safe. We want to make sure,
though, that we do not kill the goose that laid the golden egg,
and the economy which has created opportunity and prosperity
for this region and for the entire border region is, we know,
so dependent on that lawful commerce and traffic across the
border.
So, you have my assurance that I will continue to work
closely with you and the leadership here in this community and
across the border, to try to make sure that we strike the right
balance. I am sure that we will not get it right every time,
but we sure will try our very best to work with you to make
sure your voices are heard. I am confident that in the process,
we can effect public policy and the procedures in a way that
will ameliorate some of the potential harm that I know you are
concerned about, and I certainly am concerned about. But, we
certainly have our work cut out for us.
Thank you very much for your testimony. We will leave the
record open until 5 p.m., next Friday, December 9, for members
of the Subcommittee to submit additional documents for the
record and to ask any questions in writing of any of the
panelists. I might warn you that there may be some senators who
were not able to be here today who will have some questions in
writing for you, so if you will keep an eye out for those and
respond on a prompt basis, it would help us as part of our work
going forward.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5936.053